Randomex:
My first point was that if you have killed insects you can’t be thankful for not killing them. Your response is that if animals and insects are of equal importance then why should you be thankful for not killing animals. I don’t see how that follows.
Then I proposed an alternate theory, namely that writersoul was in fact thankful for not killing insects but the moderator removed that part. Now which part of that is not plausible? That the moderator thinks that killing animals is worse than killing insects? Clearly not seeing as no one (besides me) was hesitant to think that writersoul thought that. Ella mai the implausibility is that the moderator would edit out something that doesn’t fit with his/her worldview. Except that the moderators do do that (see http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ever-seen-a-forest-animal-die-of-old-age#post-537060 ).
You offered another theory which is indeed a possibility. But Chuvim(Joseph) has no right to ask a question based on an assumed theory. You then claim that a seminary girl in an online forum does not write with this level of a precision of language. Even if were to agree with that (which I certainly don’t), it is irrelevant here because neither of my theories presumed any real precision of language.
You asked another kashya on Chuvim(Joseph) but when I characterized it as such, you disagreed. I’m not sure why.
You then point out that writersoul eventually clarified her intent. However, I had already noted this and wrote that I like my answer better.
As for your claim that you are the Mayor, first of all, where was I when you were elected? and second of all, why would that title make you a better arbiter of the plausibility of a theory?
And finally, in regards to the last point I think you misunderstood my answer. I wasn’t saying that human death and animal death are the same (which is what the medrash said). I was quoting the Iyun Yaakov who says that they are different in that humans can only die due to aveiros whereas animals don’t do aveiros in which case anytime an animal dies it is due to old age i.e. its predestined age of death has been fulfilled as opposed to humans who often die before their preordained age of death. Therefore the original question was meaningless because if you’ve seen a forest animal die then you’ve seen it die of old age.